3 ms·
A lithium-ion breakthrough that could boost range and lower costs
- sedatk 8mo agoI don’t want lithium-ion alternatives for better range. Quite the opposite, I’m actually okay having slightly less range if it means my car won’t spontaneously combust. This one apparently improves the safety of lithium-ion batteries too, so it’s great, but I hate when headlines focus on one thing that matters the least.
- hgomersall 8mo agoDo you worry about spontaneous combustion of ICE cars? They are far more likely to burst into flames than EVs.
- apparent 8mo agoIs this true when adjusting for vehicle age? The average age of an EV is quite a bit lower than the average age of an ICE vehicle, and I assume there is at least some correlation between a vehicle's age and how likely it is to explode (based on degradation, type of use, type of owner, etc.).
- sedatk 8mo ago> They are far more likely to burst into flames than EVs. There’s a substantial increased risk only with ICE cars that are at least 10 years old and poorly maintained. Li-ion EVs carry that risk from day one.
- NickM 8mo agoNeither EVs nor ICE cars spontaneously combust unless there's a design flaw. Even when this happens it tends to be very rare, but the Chevy Bolt fires for example were fixed with a recall. Similarly a Ford recall last year fixed a problem where fuel injectors could leak and cause an engine fire. EVs and ICE cars can both catch on fire in a bad enough accident, but this is true regardless of the age of the vehicle, and tends to be more sudden and violent with gasoline explosions vs battery fires.
- sedatk 8mo ago> unless there's a design flaw No. They can happen with manufacturing flaws, wear and tear, or with a dent to the underside of the car in case of EVs too.
- giobox 8mo ago> Quite the opposite, I’m actually okay having slightly less range if it means my car won’t spontaneously combust. Modern LFP LiIon (LiFePO4) batteries are pretty damn safe now, and is also the dominant chemistry in new EV batteries and energy storage systems. The fire risk is nothing like what it was, arguably your wish has already been granted. The Chinese market is mandating this year that EV batteries prevent fire or explosion for a minimum of 2hrs after a cell enters thermal runaway, and LFP is the main driver to achieve it.
- sedatk 8mo agoTrue, but they are not as common as they should be.
- apparent 8mo agoI get that this can make it possible for greater range for the same price, but what about the same range for lower price? If it weren't for the batteries, EVs would be much cheaper than ICE vehicles. It stands to reason that if we can cut the battery cost while keeping range the same, we could greatly cut the cost of the EV in total. Maybe car companies don't want to do this because they'd rather price discriminate and get every last penny. It would be too bad though, since some people would happily upgrade cars more frequently if they weren't so outrageously expensive ($50k avg price for new vehicle transactions, IIRC).
- orev 8mo agoCar companies already alter fuel tank sizes to get a specific range, so it would stand to reason that they would do the same for batteries. It’s cheaper for them to use fewer materials.
- apparent 8mo agoHope so! I have seen a few vehicles with higher capacity trims, so the real question is whether they'd shave $5k off the price of a vehicle and give it a quite-limited range (150 mile). Some people would be totally fine with that, especially as a second/third car. But it would somewhat complicate manufacturing and make it a little more confusing for consumers to know what they're getting. Perhaps this corner of the market will continue to be served by sellers of years-old EVs, which can have lousy range but work well otherwise.
- deleted 8mo ago[deleted]
- Tade0 8mo agoCar manufacturers already offer different sizes of battery packs, but that doesn't affect the price that much.
- apparent 8mo ago
- MBCook 8mo agoWhat does it mean it doesn’t have an anode? How is the other pole connected to the battery?
- pdonis 8mo ago"Anode-free" is a bit of a misnomer; there is still a charge collector and electrical connection on the anode side. It just means that, when manufactured, the anode-side charge collector is bare (no lithium electroplated onto it); the lithium is all at the cathode. During charging, lithium gets deposited onto the anode charge collector, and during discharging, the lithium migrates back to the cathode. More here: https://pubs.rsc.org/en/content/articlehtml/2024/ta/d4ta02003k https://pubs.rsc.org/en/content/articlehtml/2024/ta/d4ta0200...
- MBCook 8mo agoThank you. I figured it had to be a misnomer. That makes sense.
- 7777777phil 8mo agoWorth noting this is an anode-free design. Removing the anode matters more for commercialization than the energy density headline because it cuts material costs and simplifies manufacturing. 80% capacity retention is promising buuuuut.. "near-real-world conditions" is doing heavy lifting in that sentence.
- mmooss 8mo ago> it cuts material costs and simplifies manufacturing How much does it reduce material and manufacturing costs? I don't expect an exact number, but more like 5%? 50%?
- meling 8mo agoJikes! How many ads can they squeeze in on news website… really distracting (I’m not using ad blocker).
- ninalanyon 8mo ago> I’m not using ad blocker Why not?
- zamalek 8mo agoThis is awesome news - and maybe a leap forward to tide us over, but solid state batteries are also usually hyped for safety reasons: puncturing one with a nail won't result in a fire (or some other accident). The article doesn't mention that - only that they've mitigated safety concerns from dendrites.